Talk:Radical centrism

Why is this article classified under Project Conservatism?

Radical centrism is explicitly *not* conservative. It is a call for change, specifically changes that do not conform to conservative or (U.S.) liberal party lines. I don't know who makes these classification decisions, but I think the article belongs elsewhere. I don't have a specific suggestion. 67.167.254.120 (talk) 08:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Larry Siegel

Too many words in intro

One of the sentences in the intro reads: Criticism of radical centrist policies and strategies has mounted as the political philosophy has developed. This is almost redundant because it says there has been criticism AND it is followed by three examples of criticism. To state the obvious: The examples are sufficient to demonstrate the existence. There is one little grain of non-redundant info though: The criticism is proportional to the maturity of the philosophy. But this is not in the article and not referenced. So we can remove this without loss. --Ettrig (talk) 07:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Also the second paragraph uses a silly definition of centrism which contradicts centrism. 98.4.112.204 (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Call for compromise (and viewers' input) on dispute between Ettrig and Babel41

Dear Ettrig, - Thank you for fully explaining yourself (immediately above), and for caring about the quality of Wikipedia (WP). However, I find your explanation unpersuasive, and I have reverted your reversion, meanwhile hoping you or a viewer of this exchange will respond positively to my compromise proposal in the last paragraph below.

The function of an Introduction to a WP article is to briefly summarize the content of the article; see WP:LEAD. That is exactly what the paragraph in question (the last one in the Introduction section) does. The opening sentence, which you deleted, announces the broad theme of the "Criticism" section of the article, and the subsequent sentences give some examples to back up the sentence you deleted - examples that themselves derive from the Criticism section.

The introduction to WP:LEAD states that the introductions to WP articles should consist of "well-composed paragraphs." A well-composed paragraph of expository writing generally consists of a lead sentence and a couple of sentences backing it up. That is exactly what the paragraph in question did. By deleting its lead sentence, all we are left with is a paragraph consisting of a couple of stray examples of criticism The lead sentence provides the necessary context for them. The examples alone, without the lead sentence, do not constitute a well-composed paragraph.

Perhaps an acceptable solution here would be for you to create an alternative lead sentence to the paragraph in question, one you perceive to be more accurate. Or perhaps viewers of this exchange would like to suggest - or create! - an alternative lead sentence. WP is a collective endeavor; I would welcome any such solution, so long as the paragraph is given an appropriate lead sentence. Best, - Babel41 (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Obviously I think the best replacement for this sentence is nothing. The sentence that you cite is mainly about the length of the intro. But yes, of course we all want all the text to be well-composed. You formulate above that this means support for your view in this discussion. That argument is a fabrication. The principle that you formulate does not exist. There IS a contradicting principle that you refere to yourself: The intro shall be brief (the word used is "concise"). With my solution the intro becomes more concise. --Ettrig (talk) 09:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Ettrig, - I appreciate this exchange, and wonder whether your disbelief in my stricture - that a well-composed expository paragraph generally needs a lead sentence - reflects a cultural difference. I was taught this in composition classes in high school and college in the U.S., you appear to be from Sweden. Also, I may be two generations older than most people on WP and am infinitely more at home in the world of the humanities than in the world of sci-tech and computers. Despite some perspective on that baggage I remain convinced that an introductory sentence is needed to orient readers to the rest of the fourth paragraph (which they can then skim or omit).

As stated earlier, I am willing to replace the first sentence with one more to your liking. So I hope you will accept the following alternative sentence: "Radical centrism has received much criticism." It meets my criterion of broadly summarizing the paragraph and the "Criticism" section. It meets our joint criterion of not committing original research, WP:OR, as the original first sentence may indeed have done. And it meets your criterion of extreme brevity - six words!

There are now 100 watchers of the Radical centrism page. I suggest giving them another 24 hours to comment on this exchange. And then, unless I hear from you or anyone differetly, I will remove the original sentence and replace it with the one above. I hope that works for you. Best, Babel41 (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I laud you for making this effort at a compromize. You have reduced the redundant sentence dramatically and sufficiently in my view. Well done! --Ettrig (talk) 06:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Pats on the back for both of us I think. - Babel41 (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Australia - Noel Pearson

Noel Pearson brands himself as a Radical Centrist in an attempt to appear non-partisan, open, and working in favour of Indigenous Australians. On the social welfare issue, he is the ideal Radical Centrist, butt on every other issue he is very far from it and holds views that are seen as extreme to the majority of Australians including the Indigenous population. Though he does seem to have politicians and media on his side.

My issue is with the sources cited.

Cite notes 120, 121, and 122 are authored by the subject. This is repeated on his own Wikipedia entry to affirm this stance. Additionally, cite note 118 refers to a paper that questions Pearson's claim of being a Radical Centrist - not affirms it.

While Pearson has made significant contributions to the plight of Indigenous Australians, Pearson's political ideology and actions are often seen as attempting cultural genocide by using his political privilege to replace Traditional Spirituality and Indigenous Languages with Christianity, The Bible, and English; replacing the traditional family structures with the biblical ones; undermining traditional community-based justice systems with Anglo-centric Judeo-Christian system of justice. There is no middle ground. There is no centre. He is a Christian Totalitarian, or at best, a Christian Democrat, which, In Australia, is right of conservative. He will however work with whoever is in power which has ranged from the left faction of a centre-right party to the right faction of the right party. His political allies are considered right to far-right authoritarian Christian fundamentalist Monarchists -- which is polar opposite to the communities he purports to represent.

The Indigenous community track all media regarding Pearson which can be viewed at: http://www.kooriweb.org/foley/resources/pearson/noel_articles.html

The positive articles come from sources that range from Classical Liberals to Conservative to Christian Democrats. The negative articles generally mine quotes from centre-right politicians who unanimously agree that the guy is off the spectrum.

While I've been unable to find any reliable sources that confirm his true political ideology, there are none that are not self-authored (in blog-style opinion pieces reprinted in a reliable but right-wing paper) that support the claim of Pearson adopting Radical Centrism. I do believe that the -- potentially autobibliographical -- entry here and on his personal Wikipedia entry are purposely, or possibly misguidedly, deceitful.

I consider myself a Radical Centrist (with communitarian leanings) but the term could have been used for the majority of politicians and voters (but not Pearson) until American-style partisanship caught on in the late 2000's.

Abl81 (talk) 03:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Abl81, - I am not unsympathetic to your thoughts & feelings here. I have read many of the radical centrists in the article, and have devised my own private classification of them as initiators, followers, or opportunists.

However, as I'm sure you know, Wikipedia (WP) does not want its contributors to add their thoughts to its articles. (See WP:OR). Unlike blogs and social media, WP is a rules-based encyclopedia whose mission is to report on what "reliable sources" (WP:RS) are conveying about a subject. That is why all the citations you mention are legitimate here. It doesn't matter whether the cites are to primary or secondary sources. It does matter that Pearson is a WP-notable figure (see WP:BIO). It also matters that two of the cites are to the largest newspaper in Australia, one is to the text of an invited speech to a major foundation, and #118 discusses P's radical-centrist ideas in depth (and not dismissively, as you suggest) in a major academic journal, the Australian Journal of Political Science. All four texts put P. forward as a radical centrist in their very titles, and among them they give a good overview of what for better or worse is his version of radical centrism. That is surely what we want from WP. Readers can, and will, come to their own conclusions.

Please note that, consistent with WP practice in many articles about controversial subjection, the expository sections here are followed by a "Criticism" section where many radical centrist people and perspectives are criticized from diverse points of view. Pearson is included. The last sentence in the "Objections to policies" sub-section refers readers to a 15-page essay in the Australian Journal of Politics and History (footnote 164) which reports on those who are asking whether Pearson is a radical centrist or a "polarizing partisan" – much as you do in your note above.

I think you have a much stronger case with regard to the Noel Pearson biographical article on WP, which you also mention. Three red flags stand out for me there: the gushy last paragraph in the Introduction; the absurdly long "Articles and addresses" section (not even Prime Ministers get that kind of treatment on WP); and – most troublesome, at least for me – the fact that there is no "Criticism" section there (often called an "Assessments" section with regard to biographical subjects). There is no hard-and-fast rule that biographies must have such a section, but in nmy experience on WP, most good bios about controversial figures do have one.

You appear to have the knowledge to create a Criticism or Assessment section for the Pearson bio; and I encourage you to do so. The two academic journal articles about P. mentioned above & cited in the Radical centrism article can give you material, and so can the Indigenous critics (so long as you can find their critiques in reliable sources, either expressed in their own words or described by others). If "someone" eliminates your critique from the Pearson bio, you can simply revert their elimination so long as your critique is done in an objective tone of voice, is not disproportionately long, and is properly sourced. I am not sure WP is your cup of tea. But if you feel passionately about this, go for it. Best, - Babel41 (talk) 05:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Why I replaced primary sources with a secondary source

Dear 50.252.146.35 and Tylerafagan67, - I appreciate your enthusiasm in reporting on Senator Manchin's use of the phrase "radical middle". However, I have replaced your primary sources with a reliable secondary source, and changed the paragraph accordingly. Here's why:

Your sources are television interview transcripts. Wikipedia (WP) much prefers reliable secondary sources, such as mainstream books and articles, to primary sources, such as media transcripts and organizational documents; see especially WP:RSPRIMARY.

Here's the point: It is virtually impossible to use primary sources without interpreting them. And WP does not want its contributors doing that, because then they are conducting what WP calls original research, see WP:OR. Put plainly, WP wants its contributors to report on what reliable secondary sources are saying; it does not want its contributors to pull out favorite passages from primary sources and say, "Look! Look! Senator X is a Y!"

In the paragraph you wrote, you find it significant that Senator Manchin used the phrase "radical middle" one time each in two television interviews. But that is your interpretation of the significance of his words. I find, and others might find, his use of the phrase insignificant, for the following reasons:

1. The vast majority of both interviews shows Manchin to be a conventional centrist, not a radical centrist; and

2. Both mentions of the radical middle are accompanied by laughter! Manchin may be joking, or being puckish, or wildly exaggerating, or making the ironic point that it's "radical" to be a moderate in the Senate today.

In neither interview does Manhin demonstrate any understanding of the concept of the radical middle as it's developed over the last five decades. No radical centrist theorist I've read equates the radical middle to compromise between Congressional Democrats and Congressional Republicans. Some call that space the "mushy middle", as per our article. WP's articles on Bipartisanship and Centrism may be where material on Manchin, Jones, and Collins properly belongs.

The classic way to avoid interpreting primary sources on WP is to ask if a reliable secondary source (see WP:RS) has made use of that or similar material. If so, then we can simply neutrally report on what the secondary source says. After much searching, I was able to discover that a WP-notable journalist in a mainstream periodical has noted Manchin's use of the phrase, in an actual conversation with Senator Jones. So I have replaced your paragraph with one based on that secondary source, and added another secondary source for context.

Again, I appreciate your work. And I think that, if there is any real substance to Manchin's use of the phrase radical middle, then other mainstream journalists and authors will pick up on it, and it will find its way – through their writings – into this article. All best, - Babel41 (talk) 05:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Info. on the leadership of No Labels belongs in WP's No Labels article, which this article links to twice.

Request to Treybien to revert his changes to this article's citation style

Dear Treybien, - I have just seen your conversion of some citations in the Radical centrism article to another citation style.

I appreciate the time and energy you are putting into WP. However, at WP:CITEVAR, editors are instructed to not change an article's established citation style. This article has maintained an established citation style since 2013. (I assume you were not aware of this!) Therefore, the citations you changed should be returned to the established citation style.

I was able to revert the citation style changes you entered on 4 June. However, I lack the skill to revert the citation style changes you entered on 2 June. Would you please do so? As an experienced editor, you will understand that an article can quickly become a hodgepodge if WP's rules are not followed. Thanks so much! - Babel41 (talk) 04:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Treybien to this discussion as a first step.--MONGO (talk) 05:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Babel41: Hi. I've checked out all the changes introduced (comparison page) by Treybien on June 2, 2020 and IMO they did NOT degrade quality of the citations as to be considered as merely reflecting personal preferences as he/she converted plain links and provided additional more information. It's undeniable that they introduced inconcictencies but it's hardly justifiable to revert them back.

[...] However, at WP:CITEVAR, editors are instructed to not change an article's established citation style. [...] I think it's just right moment to mention exceptions which can be found at the followig section: WP:CITEVAR#Generally_considered_helpful which clearly allow such changes if they are helpful. Don't you consider template-based citations as inferior to plain-link-in-tags or parenthesised ones? They seem to be obsolete to me. DAVRONOVA.A. ✉ ⚑ 06:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Dear DAVRONOVA.A., - Greetings from thousands of miles away, and thank you for responding. However, I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I did not say that Treybien had "degraded the quality of the citations." To the extent he added additional information to them, I applaud him. What I objected to was that he changed the citation style of a portion of the citations from one accepted citation style to another, without seeking a consensus. At WP:CITEVAR, WP tells its editors not to do that:

Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change.

Moreover, despite what you claim, the "Generally considered helpful" portion of WP:CITEVAR nowhere says or implies or even hints that an editor can change the established citation style of a mature article without first seeking consensus on its Talk page.

That is my basic point. But let me respond to some of your other claims.

1. We actually have no idea why Treybien changed the established citation style of some citations here. He/she failed to tell us why, or even inform of us what he/she was doing, on the View history / Revision history page.

2. You (not Treybien) claim that the template-based citation style is more helpful than, and superior to, the free-form style. You even feel free-form is "obsolete." I disagree. I consider template-based to be cumbersome, old-fogeyish, and intimidating. But so what? These are just our preferences, exactly what CITEVAR wants us to avoid debating. The truth is that Wikipedia considers both citation styles equally valid. And that the hundreds of editors that have worked on this article over the last eight years have stuck to the free-form citation style. It is therefore this article's established citation style, and cannot be changed without PRIOR consensus on the Talk page.

3. I hardly find it "helpful" to change some citation styles here but not others. It will only confound future contributors to this article, and keep it from achieving Good Article status.

4. It is not true that Treybien's citation-style changes did not impact the existing content of some citations. In the very first and second citations, you will see that he/she eliminated phrases succinctly describing the content of those important articles. Hours worth of research – zap.

All I am asking is that Treybien be made to follow the rules here. His/her citation-style changes should be reverted, and he/she should then seek consensus for them on this Talk page. I try to follow WP's rules, and have been reverted when I failed to do so. Others should be treated the same. Best, - Babel41 (talk) 05:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The editor that made the changes has decided to not participate in this discussion yet so feel free to revert back to the previous changes.--MONGO (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Babel41: [...] and cannot be changed without PRIOR consensus on the Talk page. [...] Let's agree on this. Doesn't seem that consensus is reached. I have to agree with MONGO for now. Untill contributions are challenged by Treybien here I think you can revert them back safely. But please, keep publisher's and author's names (which were added by Treybien) in place as to avoid WP:BABY.

[...] you will see that he/she eliminated phrases succinctly describing the content [...] Can you please specify which ones exactly these changes were by using {{diff2}} template? Please, use also {{tq|q=1| qoute goes here }} template to point out which my point you argue against.AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Dear MONGO and DAVRONOV, - Thank you both for helping this discussion reach a respectful and decisive conclusion. I will revert back to the established citation style (while keeping any missing publishers' or authors' names that Treybien may have added). However, because it will be extremely time consuming and exacting - I don't have rollback rights here - I will not be able to get to it until my real-world duties slack off a bit. I am sure I will get to it sometime this month.

DAVRONOV, you can best see the excised phrases from citations #1 and 2 if you simply go to the View History page, click on any "prev" link prior to June 2020, and scroll down to the References (i.e., list of citations). Again, thanks and best to you both, - Babel41 (talk) 06:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)